Interpretation of Results of Studies Evaluating an Intervention Highlighted in Google Health News: A Cross-Sectional Study of News

Abstract

BackgroundMass media through the Internet is a powerful means of disseminating medical research. We aimed to determine whether and how the interpretation of research results is misrepresented by the use of “spin” in the health section of Google News. Spin was defined as specific way of reporting, from whatever motive (intentional or unintentional), to emphasize that the beneficial effect of the intervention is greater than that shown by the results.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of news highlighted in the health section of US, UK and Canada editions of Google News between July 2013 and January 2014. We searched for news items for 3 days a week (i.e., Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) during 6 months and selected a sample of 130 news items reporting a scientific article evaluating the effect of an intervention on human health.ResultsIn total, 78% of the news did not provide a full reference or electronic link to the scientific article. We found at least one spin in 114 (88%) news items and 18 different types of spin in news. These spin were mainly related to misleading reporting (59%) such as not reporting adverse events that were reported in the scientific article (25%), misleading interpretation (69%) such as claiming a causal effect despite non-randomized study design (49%) and overgeneralization/misleading extrapolation (41%) of the results such as extrapolating a beneficial effect from an animal study to humans (21%). We also identified some new types of spin such as highlighting a single patient experience for the success of a new treatment instead of focusing on the group results.ConclusionsInterpretation of research results was frequently misrepresented in the health section of Google News. However, we do not know whether these spin were from the scientific articles themselves or added in the news.

Effects of the Informed Health Choices podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects: one-year follow up of a randomised trial

“…These claims have increased in frequency, geographical reach and speed of spread as access to information, the Internet and social media use increases [7][8][9][10]. Many of these claims are not based on trustworthy evidence [11][12][13][14] and represent a portion of what some people term as "fake" health news, advice or stories. Many people do not have the required aptitude to critically appraise the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of treatments, and often act on them in making choices about treatments [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24].…”

Reporting gaps between news media and scientific papers on outdoor air pollution–related health outcomes: A content analysis

“…On the basis of the classification by Haneef et al, we assessed whether there was any misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation in (a) headlines and (b) the text bodies of these news articles and labelled the misrepresented results the “spin.”…”

“…Thus, the dissemination of scientific research in an unbiased, undistorted, and efficient manner is vital to both the public and the scientific community . However, media misunderstanding of scientific findings is common in science news reporting . The media's interest lies in speedy and eye‐catching publication rather than accurately reporting of scientific information, which gives rise to public beliefs about potential misinformation not grounded in scientific evidence .…”

“…The media's interest lies in speedy and eye‐catching publication rather than accurately reporting of scientific information, which gives rise to public beliefs about potential misinformation not grounded in scientific evidence . This intentional or unintentional misrepresentation, exaggeration, and oversimplified reporting of scientific research results have induced an inaccurate public understanding of scientific findings and have negatively impacted the public view on socio‐scientific issues …”

The development and validation of an instrument to measure the quality of health research reports in the lay media

“…Despite the valuable potential of the media as a public health tool, concerns have been raised about its reliability [1, 6–12]. For example, Haneef and colleagues (2015) identified at least one example of spin or misrepresentation of study findings in 88% of American, British, and Canadian media reports on studies of medical interventions.…”